• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pelosi Says Birth Control Will Help Economy

Contraception to reduce cost?
Sounds like eugenics vs the poor to me.
Rockefeller said he was worried about population control and how it ruins his way of life. I think if too many people are ruining the way of life, he should kill himself.
 
Contraception to reduce cost?
Sounds like eugenics vs the poor to me.
Rockefeller said he was worried about population control and how it ruins his way of life. I think if too many people are ruining the way of life, he should kill himself.

No one is making birth control mandatory.
 
So you would rather pay for their unwanted pregnancy with WIC, food stamps, childcare, welfare, section 8(becuase they are more qualified as a single parent), and child tax credits? FYI- you are already paying for their irresponsiblity by much, much, much more.

Also- I am not necessarily for spending all that money on birth control, but I would like to see the government help to make it more affordable and available to low income families and those without insurance.

How much more affordable can FREE CONDOMS at your local clinic and $12 a pack at your local pharmacy get? Seriously do I have to deliver the condoms straight to their houses too so they don't spend money on gas or bus fare?
 
As to "not wanting to" use them. My freaking tax dollars shouldn't be going to paying for your wife to get birth control because "you don't want" to use condoms because they're inconvient or it feels better without them.

If my tax dollars go towards preventing one teenage girls chance at a life not hobbled by an unexpected or unwanted child, perhpas giving her a chance at a full education or a full life, or if they keep one unwanted child from coming into this earth to live a life of sickness, starvation, and not having a chance to live a productive life then it is money well spent. Money better spent there than countless other facets of our government spending, there is a lot of spending that is MUCH more problematic than birth control. Maybe that money would be better off propping up some banking giant so that they can afford to buy out another competitor? Maybe it is better off funding lavish corporate getaways and expenditures. <shrug>
 
If my tax dollars go towards preventing one teenage girls chance at a life not hobbled by an unexpected or unwanted child, perhpas giving her a chance at a full education or a full life, or if they keep one unwanted child from coming into this earth to live a life of sickness, starvation, and not having a chance to live a productive life then it is money well spent. Money better spent there than countless other facets of our government spending, there is a lot of spending that is MUCH more problematic than birth control. Maybe that money would be better off propping up some banking giant so that they can afford to buy out another competitor? Maybe it is better off funding lavish corporate getaways and expenditures. <shrug>

If you feel that it is a good use of your money then go give that money to a Charity that does it where everyone else who is giving the money is ALSO giving it for that reason.

If YOU feel like its a good use of YOUR money, that's fine. The fact is, tax dollars aren't just YOUR money and what you feel is a good use of it may not be how other people feel. Its why these kind of things should be best left up to charities and the private sector than the government, so those of like mind can choose to do this without forcing those that don't agree with you on the notion or perhaps even the premise to also give their money.
 
Contraceptives for the poor or financially disadvantaged is a good investment. Anti-Choice overpopulationists deny the actual cost of children.
..
Let concerned private citizens "invest" their money and labor.

Dept. of Condom Distribution is not a role for the Federal Government.

I would prefer that busy bodies don't get busy with their ideas and my money.

You and other concerned citizens should do it.
 
So the lefties around here have no problem with what is effectively an argument for the government to reduce the population to help the economy?

None?

BTW - what legitimate reason is there for the government to use tax dollars to subsidize contraceptives?
 
It's not about the money or being lazy, people in commited relationships simply do not want to use condoms. If they have been tested, there is absolutely no need for them and seeing how they are $6 a 3 pack- For people having sex atleast once a day that's over $60/month.

Wait wait, I'm a low income person. Where do I sign up for the once a day thing? More importantly, where the heck did you come up with that number?

I'm all for birth control. But transferring control of contraceptive funding from state to federal is a bad idea. This sets precedent for further loss of state control over federal control.

States are in trouble due to failed spending policies and budgets. The government is already in enough trouble with the debt as is. The last thing they ought to be doing is spending more.

Obama is scaring the crap out of me. This is the 3rd federal power grab initiative and expansion of government he's put forth. Once states lose these controls its hard as hell to get them back.

p.s.- for once I'm agreeing with Hautey completely on this.

How much more affordable can FREE CONDOMS at your local clinic and $12 a pack at your local pharmacy get? Seriously do I have to deliver the condoms straight to their houses too so they don't spend money on gas or bus fare?

Please don't give them ideas. Because the answer is pretty much yes. There's no excuse for not using birth control except laziness. Even with my pitiful paycheck I can afford birth control. Heck I can even afford a diaphram and fitting for a girlfriend if needed.
 
Last edited:
Ahem, why are the states subsidizing condom use in the first place? What legitimate reason exists for any unit of government to subsidize condom use?
 
Ahem, why are the states subsidizing condom use in the first place? What legitimate reason exists for any unit of government to subsidize condom use?

STD prevention would be a good reason to promote condom. Use.
 
Ahem, why are the states subsidizing condom use in the first place? What legitimate reason exists for any unit of government to subsidize condom use?

Technically they aren't specifically subsidizing condoms. The costs for distribution are attached to sexual education programs in schools. The "freebie" box in the school clinic are funded under the sex ed. program.

Heck even I had one of those generic things in my wallet to look kewl with the condom ring showing in my wallet. Yes I did dumb things as a teenager. Could be worse, to this day I can't name anyone who used one of those things for the deed (most guys bought their own) but I can thinK of plenty of people that used them for other entertainment purposes.
 
Last edited:
Technically they aren't specifically subsidizing condoms. The costs for distribution are attached to sexual education programs in schools. The "freebie" box in the school clinic are funded under the sex ed. program.

So, government dollars subsidizing government-run sex ed programs that distribute condoms for free...but that's not a government subsidy?

You're not serious, are you?
 
STD prevention would be a good reason to promote condom. Use.

Subsidize versus promote...

Did you unknowingly shift the goal posts or was it deliberate?

Maybe you can answer the question that I had asked?
 
So, WHICH ONE government dollars subsidizing WHICH ONE government-run sex ed programs that distribute condoms for free...but that's not a WHICH ONE government subsidy?

You're not serious, are you?

State vs. Federal. Reading helps. They teach that in school.

Isn't this whats called a "strawman arguement"? Oh yeah it is.

Subsidize versus promote...

Did you unknowingly shift the goal posts or was it deliberate?

Maybe you can answer the question that I had asked?

STD prevention is part of sex ed, not just unwanted pregnancies. However, that is not what this arguement is about and the question went off track. Lets not derail this any further.
 
Last edited:
WTF?

You're not making any sense.

Sex ed programs hands out condoms. Government dollars fund sex ed program. Government dollars fund the handing out of condoms.

Translation: Government subsidizes condoms.

It doesn't matter to my question what unit of government is doing the subsidizing. There is no state versus federal angle. I am asking about government.

What legitmate reason is there for government to subsidize comdom use?
 
It doesn't matter to my question what unit of government is doing the subsidizing. There is no state versus federal angle. I am asking about government.

What legitmate reason is there for government to subsidize comdom use?


Oh sorry, a general question. The answer? It was fallout from the Clinton 90's where there was a heavy push by the American Medical Association and threats by the federal government to form the program itself. States caved and many made their own programs. Unfortunately, there was no regulation on them or accountability. Ironically, these were formed under the basis of STD's, not teen pregnancies.

Legit reasons? None really. The states were under the impression that kids would not be able to afford them and engage in unprotected sex. The long term results have been...less than ideal. Granted, back then sex in a relationship was something you had to work for. Now its pretty much mandatory. Crazy stuff.

Sounds familiar doesn't it. :rofl
 
So there is no legit reason for the government to subsidize condom use...thank you. I didn't think so.
 
It's not about the money or being lazy, people in commited relationships simply do not want to use condoms. If they have been tested, there is absolutely no need for them and seeing how they are $6 a 3 pack- For people having sex atleast once a day that's over $60/month. \

Well you can substract 5-7 days from that since women do not ovulate during menses. Actually, we only ovulate once a month, so it's free to track your cycle to have a darn good idea as to when you are fertile. Condoms for 3 days are cheap. Or maybe if one doesn't want an "unwanted child," maybe one should do other sexual activities during fertile times.

I crack up when people say people can't afford birth control, but you know dang right well most of 'em can afford to go out drinking every weekend, have acryllic nails put on, buy concert tickets or whatever floats their boats. It's a matter of priorities.

I agree w/ Hatuey on this one.
 
So you would rather pay for their unwanted pregnancy with WIC, food stamps, childcare, welfare, section 8(becuase they are more qualified as a single parent), and child tax credits? FYI- you are already paying for their irresponsiblity by much, much, much more.

Maybe those nice people with the bareback sexcapades and the unwanted pregnancies might consider placing their little burden up for adoption. :shrug: There are many couples who cannot conceive on long term waiting lists for adopting.
 
I thought marriage was the best form of birth control.
 
Well you can substract 5-7 days from that since women do not ovulate during menses.

Untrue; women can ovulate any time.
True, it's so rare that one gets pregnant from having sex while menstruating that most of us just consider those days freebies, but that does not mean it's impossible.
It can happen, and it does. It's not in fact safe to have unprotected sex while menstruating, or at any other time.
Hell, you're not supposed to be ovulating while lactating, but guess how many of us here got pregnant while breastfeeding a baby, and ended up with Irish twins- me and at least two others that I know of.
That's a high percentage, considering how few women there actually are on this forum.
 
Those abstinence programs are only effective on wives.
 
Untrue; women can ovulate any time.
True, it's so rare that one gets pregnant from having sex while menstruating that most of us just consider those days freebies, but that does not mean it's impossible.
It can happen, and it does. It's not in fact safe to have unprotected sex while menstruating, or at any other time.
Hell, you're not supposed to be ovulating while lactating, but guess how many of us here got pregnant while breastfeeding a baby, and ended up with Irish twins- me and at least two others that I know of.
That's a high percentage, considering how few women there actually are on this forum.


Besides the breastfeeding thing, you're assertion that it's untrue is misleading. It's extremely rare. The body just doesn't work that way.
 
Teenagers? But hey 1069 here I'll explain why your 'once' basically solidifies my case :

If you who, during your young years, were not the most responsible of people only managed to get pregnant ONCE then how does that justify spending literally hundreds of millions because people are too lazy to go pick up condoms?

Would you rather dole out welfare payments for 18 years for the government to raise those kids?
 
Back
Top Bottom